M/S. Kuber Mutual Benefit LTD. And Ors. vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the Valuer's professional fees are sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 6,51,062/-. The Valuer is also entitled to interest amounting to Rs. 8,20,338/- up to May 2025, with continuing simple interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 6,51,062/- from June 1, 2025, until actual payment. The claim for further enhancement due to erosion in the purchasing power of the rupee was rejected. The Court reasoned that the Valuer performed its assignment as per the Court's order, and the delay in payment was due to administrative and procedural difficulties following the disposal of the substantive proceedings, not the Valuer's fault. The Court emphasized that professionals engaged by the Court should expect timely payment and that such prolonged delays are unacceptable. The Court directed the Court Receiver to forward the order and relevant material to the concerned Official Liquidator for the Valuer to lodge its claim. The Court Receiver is to be discharged without passing accounts, and the suit account is to be closed. The Court also made observations regarding the need for administrative mechanisms to ensure timely payment of professional fees in future matters and expressed regret to the Valuer for the delay.

Facts

This matter concerns a Court Receiver's Report (CRR-25-2025) filed in the Bombay High Court, seeking directions regarding unpaid professional fees of M/s. AT & TS Associates (the Valuer). The Valuer was engaged by order of the Court in 2003 to inspect and value properties related to a Writ Petition (WP-3661-2001) filed by M/s. Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. The Valuer submitted its report in May 2004, with initial bills aggregating Rs. 7,01,858/-. These bills were later revised to Rs. 6,51,062/- after excluding service tax. The Valuer also claimed interest and an amount for erosion in purchasing power, totaling Rs. 47,26,710/-. The Writ Petition was disposed of in 2005, but the Valuer's fees remained unpaid for over two decades, leading to the current report. The Court Receiver's suit account is in debit, and Petitioner No. 1 – Company cannot be traced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Valuer's professional fees, originally billed at Rs. 7,01,858/- (later revised to Rs. 6,51,062/- excluding service tax), are payable, and if so, to what extent? 2. Whether the Valuer is entitled to claim interest on the unpaid professional fees and an additional amount for the erosion in the purchasing power of the rupee? Petitioner/Valuer's Arguments: The Valuer, through its claim, seeks payment of its professional fees, interest accrued due to the prolonged delay in payment, and compensation for the diminished value of money over the two decades since the services were rendered. The Valuer relies on the fact that the services were performed at the instance of the Court and its officer, the Court Receiver, and that the delay in payment is not attributable to any fault on its part. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the State or CIDCO regarding the Valuer's claim. However, the Court Receiver's Report indicates that the Valuer's bills were forwarded for payment, and communications were sent to the Petitioners' advocates to deposit the amount. The Court Receiver sought directions on whether certain bills should be restricted as per guidelines or if a higher amount should be sanctioned.